War Versus Non-Violence

*** Most of us agree that it's wrong and evil for one person to kill another human being, but for most governments, killing humans is a common practice. How many people does it take to make committing murder right and good?

*** What role does overpopulation play in creating war and violence?

*** If you could go back in time and kill Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin while they were young boys, would you do it?

*** If California went to war with Nevada over who own Lake Tahoe, would you find that a little absurd?

*** If you turn your back simply and allow someone to die when you could easily save his/her life, is that in any way related to intentionally killing them?

*** How do we rightly deal with the global curse called terrorism?

*** How do we rightly deal with violent religious extremists?

*** The page titled Capital Punishment° is very relevant to this discussion.

*** "Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending only money. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children . . .

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

____________________ President Dwight Eisenhower -- 34th President of the Unites States

Suppose someone from a government agency comes to you asking questions about your activities. Even though you are an upstanding citizen, and even though you have had nothing to do with what the questioner is asking you about, they want information about you.

You could be very cooperative and talk freely with him. (Like the people you've seen Inspector Columbo talk to on the television) On the other hand, you could say, “I learned years ago not to participate in this type of discussion.”

A commonly respond to a refusal to participate is, “If you have nothing to hide, why won’t you talk to me." Here's one way to respond to their inquiry:

"You want to know why I won’t discuss anything with you! Well, here’s your answer. Are you here as a friend intending to help me? Obviously not! Are you here as an adversary with your own agenda and intentions? Clearly the answer to that question is yes! Are you asking questions with the intention to harm somebody? Someone has obviously done something that you perceive to be wrong and your job is to find someone to blame, so again, the obvious answer is Yes! The bottom line is that you are here with the obvious intention of making someone's life miserable!

Do you really care about justice, or about me, or whether or not I’ve done anything wrong? I seriously doubt it because, if you follow the typical pattern of people in your position, you simply need place this investigation in the "Case Solved" file so you can look good and justify collecting you salary. I believe that if you could hang a solution to this problem on me or on anybody else handy, you’d do it in a flash.

And because I learned years ago, to as much as possible, avoid any activity that could be harmful or dangerous, and because talking to you could obviously be harmful to me, I choose to terminate this conversation."

If that does not end his/her aggressiveness, listen politely to their next statement and then respond with, “You want me to play the game called "You and Me Against Me." That’s self-destructive masochism! It’s also a very insane way to behave!

So now that you have the reason you asked for, there’s the door. Please close it on your way out.

Lying to a Liar: Do you feel obligate by your sense of ethics to tell the truth to someone whose intention is to harm you? How would you deal with someone who lies, cheats, steals? Or with someone who would injure or kill you in order to get what he/she wants? For example, would you tell a serial rapist where your daughter is? Only a fool would tell the truth when confronting such an adversary.

In the ethical dilemma, one side says,

"Always tell the truth and act with the highest level of ethics and integrity."

The other side says,

"In any interaction, the person or persons with the lowest
standard of ethics set the level of integrity for all the players."

In a confrontation, which way is the "right" way to go? Is there a fixed rule here, or does the context° (the circumstances) influence how one responds. Does the end justify the means? If so, when and under what circumstances? Both sides on this issue can justify their position, so who can say for sure that someone else's choice is wrong? Which way do you play this game?

Walking that Fine Line: For example, how do you walk that fine line between injustice and turning a known serial killer loose on a legal technicality? If you are concerned about the civil rights of someone who has openly vowed to kill anyone who does not believe in his religion, are your priorities in the right place? How do you walk that fine line between individual rights and the collective social interests of the rest of society?

Expendable Humans...

Expendable Humans: In just governments, those in charge must make critical, life-and-death decisions on a regular basis. The commonly used solution is called "The Rule of Expendable Humans." Ask any military officer how he/she deals with the fact that in a great many military actions, civilians and military personnel are placed in positions of extreme danger where some will almost certainly be injured or killed. Ask any combat veteran if he was concerned about civil rights when he faced that critical decision, "kill or be killed."

"The Rule of Expendable Humans" also applies in many non-military aspects of life. There are dangerous jobs where people knowingly put themselves at risk. In building bridges, dams, and high rise buildings, people risk their lives and some die in the process. Many people have died testing airplanes.

There are also situations in which the human who is about to be sacrificed is either unaware of his position or is placed in the sacrificial position against his/her will. For example, the cost of fixing a dangerous highway is pitted against the lives lost by not repairing it. Many people are unknowingly exposed to toxic substances.

Individual human lives are sacrifices every day for the collective good. So the real question is not shall we sacrifice someone's life. The questions are whose lives will be sacrificed? How many lives is this goal worth? And most importantly, who makes these types of decisions? Expendable Humans are a fact of life, like and like it or not, that's just the way life is.

Shades of Gray: When dealing with those who are honest, ethical and open with others, is it OK to lie, cheat, steal, etc.? Obviously not. Is it OK to con the con artist, to manipulate the manipulators, to cheat the cheaters, to lie to the liars? One could justifiably say that dealing with criminals calls for an entirely different set of behavior standards. We also have to consider the consequences of our behavior. Nothing is purely black or white. There are always shade of gray to consider.

In a controversy, is it OK to use tactics similar to those the opponent is using? For example, in the abortion controversy, the anti-abortionists peddle grossly graphic posters of aborted fetuses to elicit emotional responses. Is it right for the pro-choice supporters to bring in to the discussion pictures of baby animals of species that are in danger of becoming extinct or pictures of abandoned, neglected, dying children?

Is it wise to set yourself up on the "holier than thou" pedestal in all of your interactions with others? Does saying I would never do __(such and such)___ , prevent you from adjusting to individual circumstances. From a position of self-imposed limitation, how do you deal with someone who plays by a completely different set of rules? For example, how do you deal with a terrorist who, if given the chance, would kill ten million Americans and justify doing so by saying God told him to do it?

Peace by Threat of War: The world has thousands of nuclear bombs, and yet, only the criminally insane want to see a nuclear bomb go off in a city. Has the threat of retaliation been a major factor in keeping their use at bay? If you could unilaterally destroy the entire American nuclear arsenal, would you do so? On a planet where raw power rules, do you think that might be a rather foolhardy move?

One Possible Solution: As an alternative, consider functioning from the position of "In any interaction, the person or persons with the lowest standard of ethics set the level of integrity for all the players." This places you in the position of functioning within the highest of ethical standards in your everyday life, and at the same time, it also leaves room to deal with people like Osama Bin Laden.

In essence, the message here is: "If you play fair with me, you can be confident that I will be fair, ethical, and just in my dealings with you. On the other hand, if you cheat, lie, steal, or are in any other way, unethical with me, you can expect to receive the same type of treatment from me."

No Immutable Laws: In Chapter Eight of "The Nature of personal Reality: a Seth Book" by Jane Roberts, the concept of violence is given a bottom line in the statement: "Thou shalt not violate."** Because everything in the universe is subject to interpretations, there are no locked in rules that define exactly what is and what is not a violation.

Take, for example the biblical quote, "Thou shall not kill." On the surface, this appears to be a straight forward and simple condemnation of violence, but when you look a little closer, you'll see that it' s actually a complex statement that requires interpretation. Why? Because life on Earth survives on the principle that life forms live off each other and, in many cases, kill and eat each other. You cannot survive without taking the lives of other life forms. You cannot do something as simple as brushing your teeth without killing other life forms.

Thus, statements such as the Biblical phrase, "Thou shall not kill" cannot possible be taken literally. Each situation must be interpreted in the moment by your own inner sense of what's right and just for you to do under that particular set of circumstances. Perhaps, the above Biblical quote might be more accurately stated as: "Thou shall not kill more than necessary."

Trust Yourself: The concept of honoring the rights and property of others is tied directly to your own sense of ethics, justice, and personal integrity. In most cases, your inner knowing will tell you whether or not you are violating yourself, someone else, someone else's spirit or property, or violating the plants and animals in your environment. Determining where the line is between honoring and violating is like everything else in life. Correct behavior for you is a function of your own inner sense of ethics, justice, and personal integrity applied to the specific event and circumstances of the moment.

Someone Else's Interpretation: Many activities that are not violations have been given a bad rap and labeled as violations. Sexual activity is the major example of this. People have made up all kinds of rules around sex and labeled some activities good, others bad, and some activities are considered to be so terrible that they even passed secular laws against them and condemned those who engaged in the forbidden activities to hellfire and damnation forever. If you believe a certain sexual activity to be a violation, then for you it is a violation, but that does not mean it's a violation for others.

** "The Nature of personal Reality" offers an excellent discussion on many relevant topics including the use of violence and is high on the recommended reading list. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1974)

Understanding the present social structure:

There is a vast distinction between a republic and a democracy.°

The world is actually controlled by barbarians in business suits -- by little men riding backwards on big horses -- that power and control are a function of who can be the most destructive. The vast amount of criminal behavior on the planet has been and still is the product of those running governments, religious institutions and/or major corporations.

We must understand religious fanaticism and what its antidote is.

We must place social issues such as terrorism in its global context and then examine and consider all of the options available to stop it.

We must go to its source, to the root causes of social problems such as overpopulation and terrorism and deal with them at that level, also.

If you are willing to take the time to study and familiarize yourself with these concepts, I'll show you how to end anti-social violence in less than a ninety days. I'll give you a hint on how this can be done. Simply apply this universal law: "People always act in what they perceive to be their own best interest." See the next section, below.

Ending Anti-Social Violence:

Anti-social violence by religious extremists can be ended in a matter of weeks if those in charge are willing to get real and do what is required. Unfortunately, how to end this type violence is not something that can be explained in a thirty second sound bite.

Neither is it something that can be done by political leaders who make decisions based on popularity polls, on public approval, or on their capacity to dispense violence. Before we even begin to talk about ending this type of violence, we must first get out of denial and look openly and honestly at Earth-plane reality.

We must first understand the rules of "The Game Called Life." Without understanding the rules, it's very difficult to intentionally play and win at anything. Here are some of the concepts and rules regarding how the universe functions:

The Concepts:

Context: Everything occurs within a context. Each context is unique. A context dominates its content. In accomplishing any and all goals, understanding the three element of a context are important: a) What is a context?° b) Why are contexts important? and c) How do I intentionally create a context.

The Universal Laws: ° Intentionally creating anything requires an understanding of the three Universal Laws -- the Law of Allowing, The Law of Thought, and The Law of Intentional Creation.

Functionality, sustainability, Adaptability: In order to create stability on the planet, all long-term social programs must have three characteristics. a) They must be functional and actually accomplish the intended goal. b) They must be sustainable over the long-term, over life of the intended goal. c) They must be adaptable to changes that occur.

The Costs: In our collective social context, in order to get from where we are to where we want to be, there will be costs. We must understand that regardless of what we do or don't do, some additional, innocent people are going to be killed, injured or otherwise harmed. We need to examine these costs and determine how to minimize them.

Expendable Humans: We must also understand the military concept of expendable humans, and how this relates to our collective well being. No matter what action is taken or not taken, some additional people are going to be placed in harms way and some will be killed or injured. We need to examine these costs and determine how to minimize them.

The Ethical Level of Behavior: There is a significant distinction between everyday ethical and moral behavior and the behavior required to deal with those who have no ethical or moral restrictions. In any confrontation, those with the lowest ethical standards set the level at which the conflict can be resolved.

The Nature of a Human Being: We must come from the perspective that humans are divine being who already have the rights to life, liberty, free movement, free speech, property ownership, free trade, etc, and that governments do not have the right infringe upon these God-granted rights. (The American Constitution's Bill of Rights does not grant the people anything. It's a restriction on what the government can do.)

Some Specific Rules:

Cooperation: Cooperating together creates far more that fighting each other. To fight something is to feed it universal energy of creation° and that makes it stronger and tells the universe to bring us more of the same.

Human Devine Nature: Humans cannot separate their divine nature from the governments and the other social structures they create -- that we must prohibit any religious factions form using government law to promote its beliefs or to force its religious practices onto someone else.

All is One: We must first understand how everything is related to everything else. We are all fellow passengers on space ship Earth. We have only one space ship. It is not expendable! It is not replaceable!

Consequences: Every effect has a cause. Every action has a effect, a consequence. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There are always indirect, seemingly invisible, distant, and long-term consequences that result from every action intentionally taken or intentionally not taken.

Internal Versus External Motivation: We must understand that behavior control comes from within each person and the control cannot be dictated by armed guards no matter what weapons those guards have at their disposal. (Russian Communism is the classic example of the gross failure of violence to control the masses.)

We must understand the concept of: "How to inspire someone to change their behavior because it is in their own best interest to do so." and to do so without lies of commission, lies of omission, half-truths, manipulation, deception, intimidation, threats, or violence.

The Price of behavior: Socially unwanted behavior of any person or group can be stopped by raising the price of his/her/their behavior until the price is so high that the person or group of people choose to stop engaging in the behavior.

Self Interest: People always operate in a manner that they perceive to be in their own best interest. Self-interest influences, controls and dominates human behavior. There are two ways to influence someone else's behavior:

To change a behavior by force:   An example:    Russian communism.
              It required constant armed guards to enforce the behavior.   Stalin
               murdered 70,000,000 of his own citizens to maintain his power position.
              After seventy years of violence, it was still a dismal failure.

Change a behavior by changing the consequences:
              Negatively: Raise the price. People change because the price of the
                                      previously engaged in behavior becomes too high.
               Positively:   The most successful way to change a behavior is to provide
                                     positive incentives for getting people to engaging in a new
                                      behavior.